technical assistance consultant s report filetechnical assistance consultant’s report ... views...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

The views expressed herein are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s members, Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

Project Number: 42537 June 2012

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Philippine eGovernment Procurement System: Baseline Report covering 20012007 (Financed by PATA 7244-PHI: Strengthening the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System Prepared by Transparency and Accountability Network Philippines

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. ADB encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgement of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Scope and Limitations 3. Evaluation Framework 4. Brief Description of the System 5. Summary of Findings and Analyses 6. Conclusion and Recommendations 7. Annexes

Introduction 1. The Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) is a multi-‐sectoral

coalition composed of 25 member organizations, which was established in 2000 to contribute significantly to the reduction of corruption in the Philippines. In line with this mission, it had been at the forefront of key governance reform advocacies, which include procurement.

2. With a track record of advocating for procurement reform, TAN had been engaged by the Asian Development Bank to undertake monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of Technical Assistance 7244 (see http://www.adb.org/Projects/project.asp?id=42537) and the improvements brought about by the assistance in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS).

3. The PhilGEPS is the single, centralized electronic portal that shall serve as the

primary and definitive source of information on government procurement (Section 8, Republic Act 9184). Through R.A. 9184, government entities are required to post all procurement opportunities, bid results, and other related information on the procurement of goods and general services, civil works, and consulting services.

4. At the onset, the study team is presented with the challenge of low

compliance for posting of contract awards as mandated by procurement rules and regulations. Reportedly, there had been a dramatic increase in the posting of bid notices since the beginning of PhilGEPS but the experience is not the same for the posting of bid results.

5. The ADB technical assistance papers posit that the extent to which market

players and other stakeholders will be able to maximize use of the PhilGEPS depends on the accessibility of the system and its adherence to the principles of transparency, fairness, impartiality, efficiency, and effectiveness. These will form the bases for evaluating the PhilGEPS development.

6. TAN has commenced monitoring and evaluation of the PhilGEPS in April 3,

2012 and will conclude its report on June 30, 2012. Building on the final report, TAN submits herewith its assessment of the use of the PhilGEPS during a baseline reference period (2001-‐2007).

Scope and Limitations of the Evaluation 8. The evaluation team was given access to the PhilGEPS database through

auditors’ accounts provided by the project management office. In this, the team had access to the following types of reports:

Management Reports

• Subscriber Organizations by Country and Province/ State • Supplier Organizations by Form of Organization • Bid Notices Posted by Region • Bid Notices Posted by Business Category • Buyer Organization by Government Branch • Notices Posted by Region • Notices Posted by Business Category • Amount of Notices Posted on the GEPS

Data Dump

• Organizations • Bid Notices and Awards Summary • Order by Bid Notices • Registered Users • Bid Notice and Award Details • System Activity Records

9. The team is limited by the database design/ framework of the PhilGEPS,

which will be discussed in detail in the Summary of Findings and Analyses. Baseline Period 2001-2007 10. The team analyzed data from periods 2001-‐2007 for this baseline report. The

choice of the baseline periods (2001-‐2005 and 2006-‐2007) is founded on the development history of the PhilGEPS: 10.1. In 2000, the pilot electronic procurement system was launched

under the authority of Executive Order 322 s.2000.

10.2. In 2003, the Government Procurement Reform Act was passed into law, which reiterated the use of PhilGEPS.

10.3. In 2006, a new PhilGEPS was launched.

11. Following these developments, the baseline periods 2001-‐2005 and 2006-‐2007 have been chosen by the team to coordinate with the major periods of development of the electronic procurement system. 11.1. Baseline period 2001-‐2005 represents use of the e-‐procurement

system by national government agencies (NGAs) during its first design and development. The analysis gives special attention to the years 2003-‐2005, where then the Government Procurement Reform Act had been passed into law and coverage was expanded to all government agencies and instrumentalities.

11.2. Baseline period 2006-‐2007 represents initial use of the e-‐procurement system during the relaunch of the PhilGEPS.

12. The full report will cover the period 2008-‐2011 (see Annex A. for outline),

which assumes the system’s complete transfer, stable functionality, and familiarity and maximum use by various stakeholders. During this period, the PhilGEPS is no longer at its initial and pilot-‐test phase but has developed to be a system at a mature stage of development.

Evaluation Framework 13. The PhilGEPS, as a central portal of procurement information posted by

government entities and suppliers, primarily aims to “establish an open, transparent, efficient, and competitive marketplace for government procurement.” To this end, PhilGEPS offers the following basic features:

• Electronic bulletin board • Subscribers registry • E-‐catalogue

14. Evaluation of the system for this baseline report is guided by the criteria

“open, transparent, efficient, and competitive marketplace”

Diagram 1

15. Improved openness, transparency, efficiency, and competitiveness in the e-‐

procurement system will increase subscription and use of the PhilGEPS. Increased subscription and use of the PhilGEPS indicate greater confidence in the system. Consequently, increased trust in the public procurement system encourages greater participation in the public procurement market. This virtuous cycle strengthens the competitiveness of public procurements to the advantage of government.

16. The evaluation takes into consideration the system’s limitations brought about by policy and/or design.

Evaluation Criteria 17. The report adopts the following criteria and its operational use for the

evaluation of the PhilGEPS: 17.1. Openness is evaluated in terms of registration with the system.

The number of suppliers and buyers registered with the system is an indication of acceptance of an open and transparent system of transacting with government, as prescribed by law.

17.2. Transparency is evaluated in terms of postings of bid notices and award notices by the users of the system.

17.3. Efficiency is evaluated in terms of increased subscriptions to the

various features offered by the system, such as matching services. This also includes a simple assessment of the database design in effectively gathering and processing procurement information useful for the various stakeholders of the system.

17.4. Competitiveness is evaluated in terms of the varied levels of

participation of suppliers (order of opportunities, placement of orders, and awards).

17.4.1. The profiles of top winning bidders are also indicative of the

competitiveness of the public procurement market as captured by the PhilGEPS.

17.4.2. The system’s design and the users’ appreciation of the system are additional indicators of the competitiveness of public procurement.

17.4.3. Another useful indicator is the amount of savings generated by the

government agencies through public procurement.

A Brief Description of the System 18. The PhilGEPS in its current state is limited both by design and policy. Below

is a simple diagram describing the system’s operative functions:

19. The system has three types of users: the buyers, suppliers, and the PMO as administrator of the system.

Design limitations 20. Registration into the system is done by the buyers, suppliers, and the PMO. In

the early years of the system, the PMO creates the accounts of users as a service to walk-‐in clients and other clients that request the assistance of the PMO. Online registration is also an available option for users who wish to input their own profile information.

PhilGEPS Manual system

During the transfer of the system in 2006 (relaunch of PhilGEPS), all old accounts were tagged ADMIN-‐CREATED even if many of these accounts were created by the users themselves through online registration.

21. The buyers input the bid notice information (otherwise known as bid notice postings). Suppliers who subscribed to bid-‐matching services based on indicated preferences (e.g. according to business category) are properly notified by the system of potentially matched bid opportunities.

22. The suppliers order opportunities through the system. These suppliers form part of the Document Request List (DRL). Some other suppliers, however, still prefer to order opportunities manually or outside the PhilGEPS. These suppliers do not form part of the DRL.

23. The actual submission, opening, and evaluation of bids are done manually.

Information from these activities is not captured by the system. 24. The buyers post the award notices through the system. Buyers are however

limited to listing suppliers who are part of the DRL. Buyers are unable to post award notices where the supplier manually ordered opportunities without the assistance of PMO. PMO belatedly inputs the supplier information (ordered opportunities) as per request of the agencies so that they can properly reflect award notices through the system.

Policy-‐defined limitations 25. There are notable policy regulations that have affected the system’s ability to

capture important information. The Government Procurement Reform Act (2003) Implementing Rules and Regulations have identified the PhilGEPS registration certificate as one of the requirements for eligibility. This required suppliers to subscribe to the system so that they can participate. In 2009, the revised IRR effected the reduction of the number of required eligibility documents to improve the participation of bidders. One of the documents removed in the eligibility check is the PhilGEPS registration certificate. Instead, this was to be validated during post-‐qualification check. In effect, only the winning bidders were required to acquire PhilGEPS registration.

26. The revised IRR of 2009 also defined which procurements only require

postings of bid notices/ award notices at the PhilGEPS, as follows:

26.1. Procurement of common use goods and supplies are exempted from the posting requirements (bid and award notices);

26.2. Posting of bid notices (or request for submission of price quotations) in the PhilGEPS are exempted for Shopping of ordinary or regular office supplies and equipment not available at the Procurement Service where the amount does not exceed the following limits: 26.2.1. For NGAs, GOCCs, GFIs, and SUCs, P500,000

26.2.2. For local government units

26.3. Posting of bid notices or (request for submission of price quotations) in the PhilGEPS are exempted for Negotiated Procurement except those under two failed biddings.

26.4. Posting of bid notices (or request for submission of price quotations) in the PhilGEPS are exempted for small value procurements where the amount does not exceed the same limits for shopping of ordinary or regular office supplies and equipment.

Summary of Findings and Analyses 27. As a baseline report, the findings herein are reflective of the pains involved in

the initial development and use of the system by various stakeholders. Ordinarily, baseline information is collected from the beginning year of a project/ program and not a period composed of several years. However, considering the various developments and improvements made on the PhilGEPS from its initial creation in 2000, baseline information on the effectiveness of the system may be better presented covering the initial flight of the PhilGEPS in 2001-‐2007. The baseline period represents various initial flights (2001-‐2002, 2003-‐2005, 2006-‐2007).

28. Openness. Suppliers.

28.1. There is increase in the number of registered suppliers in the succeeding year from the time the system is introduced/ reintroduced (2001-‐2002, 2003-‐2004, 2006-‐2007). However, when the system shifts from one version to another (2002-‐2003; 2005-‐2006), there are notable adjustments that affect the registration of suppliers – a decrease in the number of supplier registrants is observed.

Table 1. Philippine Suppliers (from Subscriber Organizations by Country and Province/ State, Member Type Selected: Supplier)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 2006 2007

NEW USERS - - - - - 4,564 6,694

EXISTING USERS - - - - - 14,009 18,321

TOTAL 781 1,794 1,667 5,314 4,533 18,573 25,015

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table 2. Foreign Suppliers (from Subscriber Organizations by Country and Province/ State, Member Type Selected: Supplier)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NEW USERS - - - - - 37 91

EXISTING USERS - - - - - 124 157

TOTAL 17 21 21 27 39 161 248

781 1,794 1,667

5,314 4,533

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Philippine Suppliers

14,009 18,321

4,564

6,694

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2007

New Users

Existing Users

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

28.2. More and more suppliers outside the National Capital Region are

registered with the PhilGEPS. Suppliers from the NCR show a decreasing share of the total registered suppliers through the period 2001-‐2007. In 2001, suppliers from NCR compose 95% of the total registered suppliers. This was brought down to 88% in 2002, 75% in 2003, 38% in 2004 and finally 32% in 2007. In contrast, suppliers from Region 4A have increasingly subscribed to the system. In 2001, Region 4A suppliers compose only 2% of the total registered suppliers. Its share in the succeeding years has increased to as much as 18% (2005).

17 21 21

27

39

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Foreign Suppliers

124 157

37

91

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007

New Users

Existing Users

Buyers.

Table 3. Registered Buyers (from Data Dump: Organizations) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NCR 686 48 29 77 91 27 47

Region I 49 14 6 128 296 754 599

Region II 7 134 4 17 8 8 19

Region III 62 12 8 42 70 30 40

Region IV-A 16 34 26 124 196 139 169

Region IV-B 0 11 12 7 21 7 12

Region V 56 4 44 66 19 21 73

Region VI 59 76 20 17 11 17 30

Region VII 78 45 34 17 156 33 26

Region VIII 6 69 21 20 31 39 157

Region IX 58 0 23 8 6 10 17

Region X 65 13 9 86 41 42 110

Region XI 53 1 18 57 9 11 12

Region XII 5 19 8 41 26 8 12

ARMM 5 47 3 9 3 1 6

CAR 48 4 10 34 8 8 18

Caraga 45 0 7 83 7 5 4

TOTAL 1298 531 282 833 999 1160 1351

Table 4. Registered Buyers by Government Branch (from Data Dump: Organizations)

Government Branch 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Constitutional Office 2 1 0 1 1 8 231

Executive 1205 375 137 331 356 144 3

Legislative 5 1 2 1 2 3 3

Judiciary 35 7 0 0 1 0 0 Local Government Unit (LGU) 51 146 142 498 637 1005 1113 NGO 0 1 1 2 2 0 1

Grand Total 1298 531 282 833 999 1160 1351

28.3. There is significant increase of registrants among LGUs in 2006-‐2007. On the other hand, a significant number of executive offices have been registered with the system as early as 2001 with a few others following in the succeeding years. It will be recalled that when the system was first developed in 2000 supported by an executive order, only the executive offices were covered by the system.

29. Transparency. General Picture

29.1. In absolute value, there is significant increase in the number of bid notice and award notice postings as the system matures.

Table 5. Bid Notice Postings

(from Number of Bid Notices by Region)

YEAR BID NOTICES

POSTED

2001 2,048

2002 10,291

2003 19,003

2004 43,296

2005 86,594

2006 128,264

2007 166,707

Table 6. Award Notice Postings (from Number of Bid Notices by Region)

YEAR AWARD NOTICES

POSTED

2001 278

2002 2,078

2003 2,973

2004 4,977

2005 13,341

2006 13,109

2007 19,237

29.2. However, in terms of award notice-‐bid notice ratio, there is still

very low compliance (10-‐20%). Compliance was better in 2001-‐2003 than in the succeeding years, albeit under a more defined legal framework. On the average, award/bid notice posting compliance is at 12% or approximately 1 award notice for every 8 bid notices posted.

Table 7

YEAR

COMPLIANCE (AWARD/BID

NOTICE POSTINGS)

2001 14%

2002 20%

2003 16%

2004 11%

2005 15%

2006 10%

2007 12%

Buyers.

29.3. The top complying government agencies in terms of posting of bid notices and award notices are as follows:

Table 8. Top complying agencies (from Amount of Notices Posted (by Agency)) YEAR AGENCY # BID NOTICES

POSTED # AWARD NOTICES POSTED

COMPLIANCE RATE

2001 Procurement Service-‐Purchasing Division 356 46 13% 2002 LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES -‐ HEAD

OFFICE 813 430 53%

2003 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 898 447 50% 2004 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1223 834 68% 2005 CITY OF MANILA 1244 946 76% 2006 PROVINCE OF RIZAL 1381 1094 79% 2007 PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY 2165 1220 56%

29.4. In 2006, the top complying agency in terms of bid notice postings is the Department of Public Works and Highways. This was followed by a far second from a regional office of a line agency. In close third, fourth and fifth are provincial governments with varied income classes – Zamboanga Sibugay, a 2nd class province, had more bid notices posted than the 1st class province of Laguna.

Table 9

Agencies

Number of Bid Notices

Posted DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS - MAIN

5,862

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT - REGION IX

1,933

PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

1,900

PROVINCE OF LAGUNA 1,764

PROVINCE OF MARINDUQUE

1,547

29.5. Of the 1721 procuring entities with procurements captured by the

system in 2006, 77% or 1,333 entities did not post any award notice. This is very low compliance. Below is a ranked listing of agencies with the most award notices posted:

Table 10

Agencies

Number of Notices with

Awards PROVINCE OF RIZAL 1,094

CITY OF MANILA 872

CITY OF PASIG 488

PROCUREMENT SERVICE - PURCHASING DIVISION

472


441

29.6. In 2007, the top complying agencies in terms of bid notice postings are the local governments – 3 provinces, 1 city, and a municipality, as follows.

Table 11

Agencies

Number of Notices Posted

PROVINCE OF LAGUNA

2,228


2,165

CITY OF BATANGAS, BATANGAS

1,931

PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

1,709

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FABIAN, PANGASINAN

1,695

29.7. There is increasing non-‐compliance in terms of posting of award notices from 77% in 2006 to 80% or 1,946 out of 2,440 procuring entities in 2007. The top complying agencies are once again local government units – 2 provinces and 3 cities – with varied income classes.

Table 12

Agencies

Number of Notices with Awards


1,220

PROVINCE OF RIZAL

1,112

CITY OF URDANETA, PANGASINAN

956

CITY OF BATANGAS, BATANGAS

673

29.8. The record of top compliant procuring entities in terms of postings in the regions show that there was improved performance during the first years of implementation of the PhilGEPS (2001-‐2003). However, during the latter developments of the system, compliance has fluctuated to lower rates.

Table 13. Top performing regions

in Award/BidNotice Postings

TOP PERFORMING REGIONS

COMPLIANCE (AWARD/BID NOTICE POSTINGS)

2001 NCR 14%

2002 REGION X 69%

2003 REGION IX 84%

2004 REGION X 18%

2005 REGION IV-A 32%

2006 CARAGA 16%

2007 REGION IX 30%

(See Annex B to see performance of all regions from 2001-‐2007)

30. Efficiency

30.1. There is an increasing number of local suppliers who avail of the

bid matching services of the PhilGEPS.

Table 14. Supplier-‐subscribers of the Matching Services (from Subscriber Organizations

By Country and Province/ State)

2006 % of Total 2007

% of Total

Foreign Suppliers 10 27% 20 22% Local Suppliers 1305 29% 3270 49%

30.2. System Design Flaws 30.2.1. The design of the system has certain flaws, however, which affects

the quality of information provided by the system. As shown in Table 4, there are 231 registered organizations under the Constitutional Office category in 2007. In the same light, the Subscriber Organizations table (2006-‐2007) show duplicate entries of possibly misspelled states/ provinces:

Table 15. 2006 Subscriber Organizations By Country and Province/ State – Duplicate

Entries Country Province/ State Australia New South Wales (1)

NSW (1) VIC (1) Victoria (1)

Japan Osaka (1) Unknown (1)

Korea, Republic of SEOUL (2) Seoul, (1)

United States CA (1) CA, (1) California (3) Hawaii (1) Hawaii, (1) Il (1) Illinois (1) Maryland (4)

Maryland, (1) Michigan (2) Michigan, (1) Michingan (1) New York (1) NY (1) Texas (3) Texas, (1) TX (2)

30.2.2. The site contains no description of the kinds of data that each report (spreadsheet file or webpage) contains. The absence of any descriptive information about the reports generated by the system limits the ability of users to choose more appropriate data for their study purposes.

31. Competitiveness

Figure 5.

28.1 The rate of participation of registered suppliers has dwindled over time. In 2001, the participation rate is 71%. In 2007, this went down to 33%. About a third to a half of the registered suppliers are able to successfully receive contract awards through the system.

Table 16. Suppliers that Participated and Received Awards 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

TOTAL 798 1815 1688 5341 4573 4601 6785 ORDERED OPPORTUNITIES 565 1091 672 1925 1710 1404 2269

PLACED ORDERS 565 1091 672 1925 1710 1404 2269

RECEIVED AWARDS 368 656 522 1858 1465 1496 2649

Participant bidders Winning bidders

Suppliers

28.2 The highest number of bid notice postings from 2002-‐2006 is for items under the MISCELLANEOUS business category. The effect of this has been to hamper ‘accurate’ matching of opportunities with suppliers who have chosen specific business categories to be matched with and to receive notifications thereon. MISCELLANEOUS as a catch-‐all category defeats the BID-‐MATCHING service (efficiency), circumvents the requirements of transparency, and as a result obstructs competition.

28.3 Below are profiles of top winning suppliers each year, which

contain useful information on the level of competitiveness (and even trustworthiness) of the public procurement system of the country. In 2003, the top awarded supplier according to the system has not ordered any opportunity. Similarly in 2005-‐2007, the top awarded suppliers had more winnings than participation in bid opportunities.

Table 17. Profile of top winning supplier for 2001

Name of Supplier BAN BEE COMMERCIAL CO., INC Type of Organization Corporation # of Employees 20 Awards received 2,226 Opportunities ordered 66,037 Success Rate 3% % Share of Total Awards

8%


Name of Supplier MCSA MARKETING Type of Organization Single Proprietorship # of Employees 9 Awards received 1,495 Opportunities ordered 6,530 Success Rate 23% % Share of Total Awards

7%


Name of Supplier NEMRAC COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES Type of Organization Single Proprietorship # of Employees 8 Awards received 2,426 Opportunities ordered 0 Success Rate ??? % Share of Total Awards

17%


Name of Supplier GROUP 5 AUDIO VISUAL SYSTEMS CORP Type of Organization Corporation # of Employees 30 Awards received 2,491 Opportunities ordered 8,362 Success Rate 30% % Share of Total Awards

5%


Name of Supplier Supplier P & H MERCHANDISING Type of Organization Corporation # of Employees 21

Awards received 2,691 Opportunities ordered 1,639 Success Rate 164% ??? % Share of Total Awards

8%


Name of Supplier BLU ENTERPRISES Type of Organization Single Proprietorship # of Employees 7 Awards received 852 Opportunities ordered 751 Success Rate 113% ??? % Share of Total Awards

3%


Name of Supplier HEALTH LINE MEDICAL DISTRIBUTIONS, INC Type of Organization Corporation # of Employees 3 Awards received 904 Opportunities ordered 128 Success Rate 706% ??? % Share of Total Awards

2%

Conclusion and Recommendations (Initial) 29 The system has to improve on Efficiency, Transparency, and

Competitiveness to gain more in terms of Openness.

30 Efficiency of the system can be improved by fine-‐tuning the database design in the following aspects:

30.1 User fields can be more controlled by pre-‐identifying definable

options rather than having users to freely input the data required, such as: 30.1.1 States/Provinces of the Countries of the suppliers 30.1.2 Buyer name

30.2 Tighter controls in the identification of business categories by

buyers to ensure effectiveness and accuracy of bid-‐matching services

31 Efficiency can also be improved by putting in place policies that will enforce the posting obligations of users. While the eligibility requirement of PhilGEPS registration may be foregone, during post-‐qualification, users that have not registered with the system before the deadline of submission of bids may be automatically post-‐disqualified. This reading of the policy compels users to register with the system even if it is not a requirement for eligibility.

32 Transparency can be improved through a rewards and incentives mechanism, such as citing top complying agencies and shaming agencies that have not complied with the posting requirements set by law. Sanctions could also strengthen the enforcement of the posting policy.

33 Competitiveness is improved if there is greater transparency and efficiency

in the system. PhilGEPS can show the statistics that illustrate improved competitiveness of procurement in specific agencies (in terms of savings) to encourage other agencies to be compliant with the posting requirements set by law.

Annex A. Outline of the Full Report 1. 2008-‐2011 General Trends 2. 2008-‐2011 Regional Trends (National Capital Region, Region 3, Region 4A)

3. 2008-‐2011 Cities of Davao and Cebu 4. Performance of the 22 National Government Agencies 5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Annex B. Regional Performance in Terms of Award/Bid Notice Postings (2001-2007) 2001

Region Bid Notices Posted

With Award Notices

Award/ Bid Notice Postings Ranking

ARMM 0 0 0.00% 3 CAR 6 0 0.00% 3 Caraga 0 0 0.00% 3 NCR 2,031 276 13.59% 2 Region I 2 2 100.00% 1 Region II 0 0 0.00% 3 Region III 6 0 0.00% 3 Region IV-A 1 0 0.00% 3 Region IV-B 0 0 0.00% 3 Region IX 0 0 0.00% 3 Region V 1 0 0.00% 3 Region VI 0 0 0.00% 3 Region VII 0 0 0.00% 3 Region VIII 0 0 0.00% 3 Region X 0 0 0.00% 3 Region XI 1 0 0.00% 3 Region XII 0 0 0.00% 3 Total 2,048 278

2002


With Award Notices


ARMM 1 0 0% 8 CAR 68 0 0% 8 Caraga 2 0 0% 8 NCR 9,843 2,021 21% 4 Region I 29 14 48% 2 Region II 8 0 0% 0 Region III 24 0 0% 0 Region IV-A 123 3 2% 6 Region IV-B 16 4 25% 3 Region IX 9 1 11% 5 Region V 21 0 0% 8 Region VI 32 0 0% 8 Region VII 52 1 2% 7 Region VIII 4 0 0% 8 Region X 49 34 69% 1 Region XI 2 0 0% 8 Region XII 8 0 0% 8 Total 10,291 2,078

2003


With Award Notices


ARMM 11 1 9.09% 7 CAR 91 1 1.10% 10 Caraga 9 0 0.00% 14 NCR 16,659 2,754 16.53% 6 Region I 99 1 1.01% 11 Region II 42 0 0.00% 14 Region III 356 1 0.28% 13 Region IV-A 336 17 5.06% 8 Region IV-B 56 12 21.43% 4 Region IX 31 26 83.87% 1 Region V 27 0 0.00% 14 Region VI 694 35 5.04% 9 Region VII 249 50 20.08% 5 Region VIII 168 1 0.60% 12 Region X 89 72 80.90% 2 Region XI 77 0 0.00% 14 Region XII 9 2 22.22% 3 Total 19,003 2,973

2004


With Award Notices


ARMM 0 0 0.00% 17 CAR 540 7 1.30% 14 Caraga 717 51 7.11% 4 NCR 24,604 4,156 16.89% 2 Region I 2,858 62 2.17% 11 Region II 350 13 3.71% 8 Region III 624 13 2.08% 13 Region IV-A 1,948 114 5.85% 6 Region IV-B 192 2 1.04% 15 Region IX 1,177 39 3.31% 9 Region V 2,651 76 2.87% 10 Region VI 2,346 49 2.09% 12 Region VII 1,697 191 11.26% 3 Region VIII 1,331 91 6.84% 5 Region X 444 82 18.47% 1 Region XI 1,342 8 0.60% 16 Region XII 475 23 4.84% 7 Total 43,296 4,977 11.50%

2005


With Award Notices


ARMM 11 1 9.09% 11 CAR 860 129 15.00% 7 Caraga 768 186 24.22% 3 NCR 36,694 6,921 18.86% 5 Region I 13,247 1,253 9.46% 10 Region II 362 60 16.57% 6 Region III 1,353 74 5.47% 14 Region IV-A 7,942 2,562 32.26% 1 Region IV-B 203 24 11.82% 9 Region IX 4,979 1,020 20.49% 4 Region V 5,977 175 2.93% 16 Region VI 4,543 158 3.48% 15 Region VII 2,569 223 8.68% 12 Region VIII 3,888 233 5.99% 13 Region X 570 144 25.26% 2 Region XI 1,329 15 1.13% 17 Region XII 1,299 163 12.55% 8 Total 86,594 13,341

2006


With Award Notices


ARMM 19 0 0.00% 17 CAR 942 76 8.07% 5 Caraga 942 147 15.61% 1 NCR 44,940 6778 15.08% 2 Region I 22,977 1521 6.62% 9 Region II 403 16 3.97% 11 Region III 2,111 77 3.65% 14 Region IV-A 17,406 2100 12.06% 4 Region IV-B 1,839 45 2.45% 16 Region IX 6,426 467 7.27% 7 Region V 8,178 205 2.51% 15 Region VI 4,978 189 3.80% 12 Region VII 5,691 333 5.85% 10 Region VIII 6,168 807 13.08% 3 Region X 1,237 97 7.84% 6 Region XI 842 31 3.68% 13 Region XII 3,165 220 6.95% 8 Total 128,264 13109 10.22%

2007


With Award Notices


ARMM 71 0 0.00% 17 CAR 1,441 105 7.29% 7 Caraga 1,243 12 0.97% 16 NCR 48,952 8336 17.03% 2 Region I 39,341 2793 7.10% 8 Region II 861 19 2.21% 15 Region III 3,458 216 6.25% 10 Region IV-A 26,377 3843 14.57% 3 Region IV-B 2,389 218 9.13% 6 Region IX 5,441 1652 30.36% 1 Region V 9,554 314 3.29% 12 Region VI 7,654 208 2.72% 13 Region VII 7,123 387 5.43% 11 Region VIII 5,907 714 12.09% 4 Region X 2,597 262 10.09% 5 Region XI 1,368 93 6.80% 9 Region XII 2,930 65 2.22% 14 Total 166,707 19237 11.54%

technical assistance consultant s report filetechnical assistance consultant’s report ... views...

Documents